The International Trade Commission, an obscure administrative body that has become an increasingly popular venue for patent disputes, has sided with Apple in its fight against Motorola Mobility.

The Google subsidiary filed a complaint with the ITC in 2010 alleging that Apple had violated 18 Motorola patents. The company asked the panel to ban iPhone imports. After siding with Apple on other patents earlier in the process, the ITC rejected Motorola's final remaining patent in a Monday ruling.

Monday's decision focused on Patent No. 6,246,862, "Sensor controlled user interface for portable communication device." It covers the concept of using a proximity sensor to automatically disable a device's touchscreen. This technique is used by the iPhone and other modern smart phones to avoid accidental input when the user puts the phone to his or her face to make a phone call. The ITC concluded that the concept was too obvious to merit patent protection.

A Google spokesman told Bloomberg that the company was "evaluating our options." Apple had no comment.

Timothy B. Lee
Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times. Emailtimothy.lee@arstechnica.com//Twitter@binarybits

This has to be one of those times when I say why is it too obvious to be a patent... I mean its not something seen in nature and until we had mobile phones, it wasn't something really needed, so wasn't it original?

Steve Jobs introducing the iPhone:"We’ve got three really advanced sensors built into this phone. The first one is a proximity sensor. It senses when physical objects get close, so when you bring iPhone up to your ear, to take a phone call, it turns off the display, and it turns off the touch sensor, instantly. Well, why do you want to do that? Well, one to save battery, but two, so you don’t get spurious inputs from your face into the touch screen. Just automatically turns them off, take it away, boom, it’s back on. So it’s got a proximity sensor built in."

If it was so obvious, why would steve jobs have to explain it?

I agree with @sublimeandetc , if they can try to patent a rounded rectangle, then I would think using a proximity sensor to disable touch inputs and save power to be non-obvious.

Further on the rounded rectangle front, here's a story about how steve jobs thought rounded rectangles were everywhere, from Andy Hertzfeld, one of the original members of the macintosh dev team:

Steve suddenly got more intense. "Rectangles with rounded corners are everywhere! Just look around this room!". And sure enough, there were lots of them, like the whiteboard and some of the desks and tables. Then he pointed out the window. "And look outside, there's even more, practically everywhere you look!". He even persuaded Bill to take a quick walk around the block with him, pointing out every rectangle with rounded corners that he could find.

Proximity sensors of various types have existed long before any smartphone existed. The only question was how obvious to someone aware of this prior art is the smartphone proximity sensor. It may not be "obvious" to a programmer who has never seen these devices but to a chemical or mechanical engineer it is obvious.

Steve Jobs introducing the iPhone:"We’ve got three really advanced sensors built into this phone. The first one is a proximity sensor. It senses when physical objects get close, so when you bring iPhone up to your ear, to take a phone call, it turns off the display, and it turns off the touch sensor, instantly. Well, why do you want to do that? Well, one to save battery, but two, so you don’t get spurious inputs from your face into the touch screen. Just automatically turns them off, take it away, boom, it’s back on. So it’s got a proximity sensor built in."

If it was so obvious, why would steve jobs have to explain it?

Because it is a new application for proximity sensors that is not "obvious" to computer geeks but to other engineers it is an obvious solution. Use some proximity sensor to detect when the phone is near someone's ear is a solution the problem.

Various proximity devices have been used in the chemical industry for decades before smartphones existed so there was prior art available. Radar based proximity fuses for anti-aircraft shells were used in WWII so the fundamental idea has been in use since 1943/1944. They worked by detecting the presence of an airplane within a certain distance of the shell and then detonating the shell. If you step back, the basic problem is the same; how to make a device do something when in close proximity of something.

One of the problems with patents is that often a patent is improperly issued because no one has realized similar problems and solutions have been used in other industries.

Proximity sensors of various types have existed long before any smartphone existed. The only question was how obvious to someone aware of this prior art is the smartphone proximity sensor. It may not be "obvious" to a programmer who has never seen these devices but to a chemical or mechanical engineer it is obvious.

They didn't invent the sensor, just the stupid method to control the screen and input of a smartphone.

Same thing for Apple's patents on slide to unlock, scrolling bounce, scroll directions (whether to go up and down even if your finger went down slanted on the screen), etc.

The decision whether to defend yourself in court or simply cave in to Motorola's licensing terms has everything to do with lawyers.

There would have been months of private communication between Motorola's legal team and Apple's legal team before Motorola filed a complaint with the ITC. If Apple's legal team thought they would loose in an ITC fight, then they would have agreed to whatever licensing terms Motorolla wanted - they pay license fees for patents all the time.

Proximity sensors of various types have existed long before any smartphone existed. The only question was how obvious to someone aware of this prior art is the smartphone proximity sensor. It may not be "obvious" to a programmer who has never seen these devices but to a chemical or mechanical engineer it is obvious.

They didn't invent the sensor, just the stupid method to control the screen and input of a smartphone.

Same thing for Apple's patents on slide to unlock, scrolling bounce, scroll directions (whether to go up and down even if your finger went down slanted on the screen), etc.

One uses proximity sensors to control an input to a process. This has been done in the chemical industry for decades before smartphones existed. Some of the sensors were used to protect personnel from danger by shutting done equipment - so its a hand or foot not the ear. It is an application of prior art to do this with a smartphone.

well, it maybe not obvious if you have not needed to solve that specific problem. however when you start to design touch screen phone you will instantly come across the problem with unwanted touch events by face. and in that situation any average engineer will "brainstorm" a proximity sensor solution really fast, and then try to come up with a better solution without the need of a extra sensor. this is why it is deemed obvious because it is one of the first solutions and also it is something any average engineer within the field will come up with in the normal work day routine .

The problem of "obvious to someone skilled in the arts" is that most technical and engineering professionals tend to work in narrowly defined areas. Thus, often they are not aware of longstanding prior art in other fields which could be directly applicable to their problem. They, then, think they invented something new but actually"reinvented the wheel."

There are numerous standard practices in many engineering fields I am barely aware of and many more I am totally ignorant of. So, unless someone one these other fields explained a practice, I may not realize the solution to a problem is to adapt an already existing practice to my problem. I am chemical/materials engineer by trade.

Proximity sensors of various types have existed long before any smartphone existed. The only question was how obvious to someone aware of this prior art is the smartphone proximity sensor. It may not be "obvious" to a programmer who has never seen these devices but to a chemical or mechanical engineer it is obvious.

They didn't invent the sensor, just the stupid method to control the screen and input of a smartphone.

Same thing for Apple's patents on slide to unlock, scrolling bounce, scroll directions (whether to go up and down even if your finger went down slanted on the screen), etc.

One uses proximity sensors to control an input to a process. This has been done in the chemical industry for decades before smartphones existed. Some of the sensors were used to protect personnel from danger by shutting done equipment - so its a hand or foot not the ear. It is an application of prior art to do this with a smartphone.

I take it that anything can go through the patent office, but the court decides if the patent is valid or not only after you try to sue someone?

Radar based proximity fuses for anti-aircraft shells were used in WWII so the fundamental idea has been in use since 1943/1944. They worked by detecting the presence of an airplane within a certain distance of the shell and then detonating the shell. If you step back, the basic problem is the same; how to make a device do something when in close proximity of something.

I for one am pleased once they figured out how to make it to do something they settled on "turn off the screen" instead of "explode".

The decision whether to defend yourself in court or simply cave in to Motorola's licensing terms has everything to do with lawyers.

There would have been months of private communication between Motorola's legal team and Apple's legal team before Motorola filed a complaint with the ITC. If Apple's legal team thought they would loose in an ITC fight, then they would have agreed to whatever licensing terms Motorolla wanted - they pay license fees for patents all the time.

That's not what I said; you are replying with a strawman argument.

Moto, HTC, Nokia, etc. file a complaint with the ITC and they determine themeselves what to do; no lawyers argue the case live before the judge.

And HTC themselves are on record stating Apple had no negotiations before lawsuits started. Motorola went for both invalidation of patents and the offensive before Apple sued them; I doubt they did either.

Proximity sensors of various types have existed long before any smartphone existed. The only question was how obvious to someone aware of this prior art is the smartphone proximity sensor. It may not be "obvious" to a programmer who has never seen these devices but to a chemical or mechanical engineer it is obvious.

They didn't invent the sensor, just the stupid method to control the screen and input of a smartphone.

Same thing for Apple's patents on slide to unlock, scrolling bounce, scroll directions (whether to go up and down even if your finger went down slanted on the screen), etc.

One uses proximity sensors to control an input to a process. This has been done in the chemical industry for decades before smartphones existed. Some of the sensors were used to protect personnel from danger by shutting done equipment - so its a hand or foot not the ear. It is an application of prior art to do this with a smartphone.

Of course, and so are apple's heuristics to control all their stuff.

In general however, it seems taking very obvious things and making something new out of it still merits protection. I think the variable speed windshield wiper system is obvious but the courts disagreed.

well, it maybe not obvious if you have not needed to solve that specific problem. however when you start to design touch screen phone you will instantly come across the problem with unwanted touch events by face. and in that situation any average engineer will "brainstorm" a proximity sensor solution really fast, and then try to come up with a better solution without the need of a extra sensor. this is why it is deemed obvious because it is one of the first solutions and also it is something any average engineer within the field will come up with in the normal work day routine .

You make sense and I agree with you, but just try naming any smartphone from the previous decade that had that feature. I can only think of a Nokia phone, and didn't even think Moto patented it back in 2001.

It just goes to show you how poorly marketed some features were of other phones. Apple will advertise in 2013 that the iphone5 has noise cancellation, but that's been a feature even of their own phones for years.

The problem of "obvious to someone skilled in the arts" is that most technical and engineering professionals tend to work in narrowly defined areas. Thus, often they are not aware of longstanding prior art in other fields which could be directly applicable to their problem.

So it is the engineers who grant and enforce all of these obvious patents?

I think Motorola deserves some props for that patent. Filed back in 1999, I'm pretty darn sure that it was novel at the time. That being said, there's a number of derivative patents (such as Agere's patent that in theory would also lose protection.

Though I don't agree with using them as a means to block an import on, I do think that the ITC looked at the patent in today's eyes. While it seems obvious now, it was not obvious then and I feel still warrants the patent.

In general however, it seems taking very obvious things and making something new out of it still merits protection. I think the variable speed windshield wiper system is obvious but the courts disagreed.

Yes the idea of variable speed wipers is incredibly obvious, but turning that idea into reality was difficult at that time. Remember, unlike now when ideas and concepts are patented, this patent was for an actual product that many teams of engineers were trying and failing to produce.It was extremely deserving of a patent.

So this is obvious but things with prior art or geometric shapes are not?

How can anyone take this seriously?

Tell me, when will you guys grow up and learn that design patents / trade dress / copyright issues have nothing to do with actual patents whatsoever? In case you truly have been living under a rock, Apple certainly doesn't have a patent for a rectangle- anyone can use rectangles in their design. What you can't do is create a product that is deliberately designed to mimic someone else's branding. If I were to start a courier, call it "FexExd", and put it in the same font and colours as FedEx, that would be against the law. Not because FedEx has a patent on the color purple, but because it is a clear attempt to appropriate someone else's branding. Now whether or not you agree that Samsung has copied Apple's branding, you, as an adult human being, should be able to understand that the business about the rectangles is not a patent issue and stop bringing it up in patent conversations.

The problem of "obvious to someone skilled in the arts" is that most technical and engineering professionals tend to work in narrowly defined areas. Thus, often they are not aware of longstanding prior art in other fields which could be directly applicable to their problem.

So it is the engineers who grant and enforce all of these obvious patents?

You missed the point, many so called patents are actually an application of something that has been done in another field for many years if not decades. Proximity sensors have used in other fields decades before the Motorola patent application. So there is prior art that makes the solution obvious - you have some type of proximity sensor that sends a signal to the "a black box" (program) to do something you want. It add insult to injury, programmable logic controllers have been doing this type control on chemical and manufacturing processes for years, at least 20 years before the Motorola patent application.

The problem is that USPTO did not do a thorough review of the application. Also, Motorola probably did a poor review of "the prior art".

You missed the point, many so called patents are actually an application of something that has been done in another field for many years if not decades. Proximity sensors have used in other fields decades before the Motorola patent application. So there is prior art that makes the solution obvious - you have some type of proximity sensor that sends a signal to the "a black box" (program) to do something you want. It add insult to injury, programmable logic controllers have been doing this type control on chemical and manufacturing processes for years, at least 20 years before the Motorola patent application.

The problem is that USPTO did not do a thorough review of the application. Also, Motorola probably did a poor review of "the prior art".

Speaking of poor reviews, did you read the patent? The description isn't for a black box with just an input and an output, it's the mechanisms within that black box down to the timing of the IR receiver. Example:"A portable communication device according to claim 11 wherein the pulsed signal comprises pulses and a separation period between consecutive pulses, each of the pulses having a first duration, the separation period no greater than 0.5 secs., the first duration no less than 50 ns."

Proximity sensors have been used in PLCs for a long time, of that I am well aware. But to simplify the process when the patent is specific about being solely for a cell phone, for a sensor that is probably 50x smaller than an industrial proximity sensor, and drawing a parallel to a completely separate field to a fifteen year old patent is silly.

Steve Jobs introducing the iPhone:"We’ve got three really advanced sensors built into this phone. The first one is a proximity sensor. It senses when physical objects get close, so when you bring iPhone up to your ear, to take a phone call, it turns off the display, and it turns off the touch sensor, instantly. Well, why do you want to do that? Well, one to save battery, but two, so you don’t get spurious inputs from your face into the touch screen. Just automatically turns them off, take it away, boom, it’s back on. So it’s got a proximity sensor built in."

If it was so obvious, why would steve jobs have to explain it?

Because it is a new application for proximity sensors that is not "obvious" to computer geeks but to other engineers it is an obvious solution. Use some proximity sensor to detect when the phone is near someone's ear is a solution the problem.

When the iPhone launched, I used to work for a network operator managing the launch of other touch screen (Windows Mobile) phones.

Not a single one of them came up with a phone that used a proximity sensor. I remember seeing Jobs' presentation and thinking "wow, why didnt any of my vendors come up with something like that?".

At first you just had to learn to hold the phone in a certain way to avoid accidental screen presses, after the iPhone launched they resorted to software tricks which got you to "unlock" the screen in a certain way before you could use it (eg. The Samsung Omnia had a tray which you had to pull down before the screen became active).

Stuff always looks obvious in hindsight, but Motorola, HTC and Samsung certainly weren't putting it on any of the devices I looked at prior to the iPhone.

It just goes to show you how poorly marketed some features were of other phones. Apple will advertise in 2013 that the iphone5 has noise cancellation, but that's been a feature even of their own phones for years.

Poorly marketed had nothing to do with it, the vast majority of other phones (I can't conclusively say all of them, since I only saw European phones) simply didn't have a proximity sensor.

I notice a downvoted challenge earlier to name a single phone before the iPhone that used a proximity sensor to turn off the screen when you're on a call. So far it's resulted in exactly one suggestion - for a phone that was actually launched after the iPhone.

If this stuff was so obvious, it would have been in tonne of phones way before June 2007. Accidental touch screen presses when you were on a call were a big issue for Windows Mobile devices.

Moto, HTC, Nokia, etc. file a complaint with the ITC and they determine themeselves what to do; no lawyers argue the case live before the judge.

And HTC themselves are on record stating Apple had no negotiations before lawsuits started. Motorola went for both invalidation of patents and the offensive before Apple sued them; I doubt they did either.

In the real world that is not how it works. You can take someone to court without contacting them first but it's very rare and frowned upon by the judges as a waste of tax payer's money.

In the real world, you first try contact the other party privately and try to sort it out. Only when that falls apart do you file a complaint with the ITC.

In the samsung/apple case, they negotiated privately for more than a year before going to court - and then the judge basically *dismissed the case* telling them to sort it out privately, only after those private negotiations failed again did the judge allow it to go to court.